I found 'Rocket Science' the way I've found several wonderful little indie films that nobody seems to know about: the sale bin at Blockbuster.Now I know why there were so many copies in there.The cast is chock-full of actors ranging from competent to spectacular; the script is fairly reeking of obnoxious characters with stereotypical indie-style quirks.Exception: the character of Hal is generally a good kid with a lot of heart and was played well by Reece Thompson. Now riddle me this: What directorial or writing mistake was it to give the kid such a severe stutter that rarely, if ever, improved temporarily? The stutter was endearing at first, then pitiful, then it just got annoying near the end of the movie when it finally dawns on the audience that Nicholas D'Agosto's character doesn't actually help him conquer it.The movie starts out pretty okay. It's not an overdone concept at all, and there are so many things a writer could do with a stuttering teenager on the debate team. Unfortunately, said teenager doesn't conquer anything, doesn't learn much, and ends up getting his heart broken by a soulless, motor-mouthed chick who "ferreted" him for no apparent reason other than to humiliate him.An oft-overlooked strong point of the movie, however, is the cinematography. So many rancid indie films are shot with shaky-cam or heavy shadows to emphasize the realism; Rocket Science makes unbelievable use of white light to the point of it being blinding, especially in the school scenes. The hallways look like they're glowing--an interesting contrast to the darkness of, say, the janitor's closet and Hal's house. I commend the artistry of whoever was behind those visuals; I'm impressed.But frankly: the combination of inane writing, random awkward silences, and annoying music forces me to turn it off about a third of the way through now. This is my third time watching it; the first two times I made it to the end and was highly disappointed both times. I regret throwing away the Blockbuster receipt, since now I have no hope of returning this little slice of pointlessness. Sorry.

You know how there are stories that are adversity to triumph, unstable to stable, confused to knowing. This is not a happy story, i sat through all the frustrating bits in the movies, putting my shirt over my head whenever he tried to debate with his enormous stutter, thinking its okay, because I'm gonna see some scenes at the end where he has finally lost his stutter. I didn't. Maybe i had the wrong idea when i watched this movie, i was convinced from start till perhaps the last scene, that i was going to see an inspiring transformation, where i would no longer feel sorry for the kid, and that marred my view on the film. All i could think about during the whole film is not what this kid was talking about, what he was thinking about, but how he was speaking. Its like a movie where the main character looks like a bunyip, all you can think about is this main character looks like a bunyip, and not really what he/she is saying. I was convinced the inevitable transformation was going to be in his speaking patterns so i wasn't particularly interested in his views on love, because I'm sorry, i don't mean to be offensive to anybody but having a speech impediment as BAD as that, is something i couldn't bear to hear for the rest of my life, you have to try and do something about it. I thought thats what this movie was about! Look I'm sure what the kid was saying was important, and meaningful, but i was looking for more blunt changes that were imperative to me saying at the end of the movie, wow that was good. The stutter was a vehicle to portray a message about love when i went through the whole movie thinking it was the opposite, that all the references to love would make him lose his stutter. Not a horrible movie, but after i finished watching it, i felt horrible, Im a bit tired of movie producers thinking 'it will be more meaningful if we deprive the movie of a happy ending'. To be honest, i don't need happy endings, but what i do need is some light. At the end of 'Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind' i was left thinking, despite its lack of a cliché happy ending, that the main characters were not doomed because of it, that they could bounce back from the issues in the movie. I felt at the end of 'Rocket Science' that the kid was never going to get rid of his stutter, and when did his last debate and he turned to the judges and said 'Im killing it right?' that he was in fact, not killing it, he sucked, you can't debate in a musical tone, there was no growth there. Was it that hard to put a happy ending in!?!

Rocket Science is a bliss of love and awkwardness in the form of a film. The acting of the incredibly talented undiscovered cast is so wonderful that each character creates there own feel. Their own back story by saying nothing. Hal Hefner, a stuttering innocent living in a half-broken home; Ben Wexelbaum, a pressured prodigy trying to break free of the life that has had him lost for so long; and Ginny Ryerson, a using overachiever who lets nothing get in her way of getting what she wants. Each actor and actress is cast wonderfully and portrays their lives in such a way that it feels like an intricately true-to-life story. The wisdom of teenagers.Director Jeffrey Blitz blends and bends his direction to make it his own. The feel of a wondrous mixture of Wes and PT Anderson blended in with Jason Reitman, making a perfectly set and paced film that describes the pains of being a teenager. The social awkwardness, the heartfelt love and the loss of innocence. This film is absolutely astounding and is so amazingly well-done. About love and debates. Romance and plastic trophies. High school was never so bittersweet for these people. As Hal puts it at the end of the film, it shouldn't have to be...

I'm surprised that this film elicits so many negative reviews here. I enjoyed reading the rant by the guy who spells cello "chello." I think that pretty much explains it. Literacy will be required to appreciate this movie.This has to be the best dialog in any film ever made with a stutterer as a central character. I found the performances letter-perfect; not a false note anywhere. This is a movie where even the bit parts are played by well-cast actors, not producers' pretty boyfriends or girlfriends. I loved the girl in the washroom with the nosebleed, for example. Perfect.Rushmore did not come to mind while I watched this film, nor did any of the other "quirky" films named here by other reviewers. But I did think of it as a companion piece to "Welcome to the Dollhouse." Both set in NJ, and both with central characters at the bottom of their school social ranking, and coping with their realities better than one would think.I particularly liked the relationship between adults and kids in this film. The adults (parents and teachers) are wise about the kids, and the kids are just as wise about the adults. The tone was just right.